A North Carolina Medical Board panel on Sept. 24 voted 2–1 to grant Dr. David Smith a continuance of his disciplinary hearing, rescheduling the matter for Feb. 17 at 9 a.m. and setting Feb. 2 as the deadline for any supplemental submissions.

Board counsel Susan Castenguay read an email into the record from Susan Harris, the monitoring coordinator for the North Carolina Medical Board, stating, "We will be able to get you on the November agenda. You will not need to attend. We will notify you once the board has voted." Castenguay said the email did not specify the November meeting date or include an agenda.

Panel member Dan Riese, after reviewing emails from the respondent, said Dr. Smith "would be wise to be represented by counsel" and argued the need for full documentation justified granting the continuance and overruling the department's objection. Michelle Jacklin, speaking for the Department of Public Health, said she would "uphold the department's objection to a continuance" because one email indicated Dr. Smith "does not have the financial resources to hire an attorney," and she noted the prior two-month continuance had been given to allow time to obtain counsel.

Attorney Fazina told the panel she could not give a definitive position without seeing any new North Carolina order but said she did not "believe that these prior orders and certainly not the orders in Kentucky or Virginia are just going to ... no longer exist." Fazina further noted that no answer to the department's statement of charges had been filed by the respondent.

Castenguay explained procedural requirements to Dr. Smith, telling him the statement of charges contains seven allegations and that he is required to submit an answer admitting or denying each allegation either in writing or orally at the next hearing. "The burden at these hearings is on the department to prove each and every allegation by a preponderance of the evidence," she said. "It's 51%."

The panel set the continued hearing for Feb. 17 at 9 a.m. and asked that any additional materials be submitted by Feb. 2 so members would have at least two weeks to review them. Dan Riese moved to adjourn to that date; Harold Sauer seconded and the panel adjourned.

The panel did not take further evidentiary action at the Sept. 24 session; its next procedural step is the Feb. 17 continuation, at which the panel will either review written submissions or ask the respondent to admit or deny each allegation on the record.